Category: Politics

Sen. Allen’s self-inflicted wounds in 2006

I guess I understand the interest in the allegation that Sen. George Allen used a racial epithet while at the University of Virginia. Given other recent and not-so-recent behaviors, his alleged derogatory comments in the early 1970s spark valid character questions. However, I’m not in a rush to damn him over this because I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Hearsay is not enough. (Someone should ask the Senator how he feels about that.) Also, I don’t need to go into the past to know I won’t be voting for him in November. Consider:

“This story and these allegations are false,” Allen told reporters after a news conference yesterday morning with primarily black pastors in support of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Virginia.

This Senate race isn’t really about the proposed amendment in Virginia. Ultimately, Sen. Allen doesn’t need the issue because the amendment will pass without his cheerleading. His support is nothing more than predictable pandering to a small-minded minority of his base who want the appearance of values rather than the possession of values. Demonizing one group of citizens to gain a few votes he’ll receive anyway is a much bigger character issue to me than allegedly using racial slurs in the distant past.

People make mistakes. Those mistakes are revealing and relevant, but what he may or may not have said while in college doesn’t interest me much. The valid question is who the candidate is today. Embracing blacks to attack gays is shameless and not the mark of a statesman. Sen. Allen’s support for Virginia’s bigot amendment, among many other departures from his absurdly self-professed libertarianism, demonstrates that he is not worthy of a continued position in the United States Senate.

Abusing language to abuse people

I’m “stunned”:

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed over the weekend to alter new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try a wider range of foreign nationals than an earlier version of the bill permitted, according to government sources.

Lawmakers and administration officials announced last week that they had reached accord on the plan for the detention and military trials of suspected terrorists, and it is scheduled for a vote this week. But in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as “unlawful enemy combatants,” the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.

We don’t believe in enumerated powers or a limited executive any longer, so why bother with descriptions of who qualifies as an “unlawful enemy combatant”? We can trust the benevolence and good intentions of whichever administration occupies the White House to not abuse its allegedly plenary power. It’s worked well so far.

Is it January 2009 yet?

Majoritarian pleas should consider the actual majority

I suppose Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, is now the preferred religious candidate for president in 2008. For evidence, witness John Fund’s glowing review following the Family Research Council’s weekend Values Voters Summit:

FRC officials says they invited Mr. McCain to speak, but he declined. But another potential candidate benefited greatly from showing up. Surprisingly, it was Massachusetts’ Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon with a Harvard M.B.A who governs the nation’s most liberal state. The 1,800 delegates applauded him frequently during his Friday speech and gave him a standing ovation afterward. Mr. Romney detailed his efforts to block court-imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State and noted that the liberal Legislature has failed to place a citizen-initiated referendum on the ballot. He excoriated liberals for supporting democracy only when they think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion that favors their views. He certainly picked up fans at the summit. “I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008,” says Maggie Gallagher, author of a book defending traditional marriage.

I’m left wondering what role Gov. Romney imagines for the judicial branch. Court-imposed seems to predict four more years of “activist judges” nonsense should Gov. Romney be our next president. Me, I’ll pass. I’ve heard the term enough. Court’s interpret the Constitution and the laws that supposedly flow from it. This is not a hard concept, even in disagreement with the decisions.

The “activist judges” is understandable, if not forgivable. Worse, though, is the clear indication that majoritarianism is a reasonable standard for Gov. Romney. The legislature disrespected the will of the minority people. Big deal. This is representative government in our Republic. This is surprising?

The “liberals” restrained government from acting to subordinate the rights of one group of citizens at the whim of another group. That sounds more like responsible government than failure. That it’s also the conservative (i.e., limited government) position in this debate indicates that Gov. Romney has no taste for principle. See Exhibit B

There’s much more worth reviewing, but I enjoy this. It’s where I’ll end:

But Mr. Romney also has many advantages. He is perhaps the only candidate who can plausibly claim a base in several states. He has a contributor base in Massachusetts; a large reservoir of political goodwill in Michigan, where he was born and his father served as governor in the 1960s; and the loyalty of many Mormons in Utah and neighboring states. He has a built-in corps of volunteers and contributors in any state where Mormons, the fastest-growing religion in America, have a real presence.

Contributor base and shared religion. Those sound like the two finest qualifications for the presidency, I wonder why we don’t just anoint Gov. Romney Presidential Apprentice when his term as governor is finished. That way he can learn from the current president, who also happens to be endowed with those two brilliant qualifications.

Why do some people refuse to take their head out of the political sand?

Howie Mandel is better at Deal or No Deal

President Bush wants Americans to physically beat the hell out of our enemies after we capture them. We all know that. And we all know that a silly burden like proof of guilt is only for unpatriotic wimps who love terrorists. What does it matter if an innocent man is tortured, as long as we feel safer. It’s better to torture too many people than too few. Anyone?

His stance is preposterous, but his threat to disband CIA interrogations if he doesn’t win capitulation from the United States Senate on his right to torture anyone for any reason is too much. Like a kid who doesn’t get his way, he wants to take his ball and go home. That isn’t leadership. Again he’s using fear to tell us why we need to let him do whatever he wants. Essentially, he’s told America to fuck off and he’s blaming everyone who believes torture is wrong. He’s a petulant, little man who wants every perk without any accountability. Watch this and try to disagree:

He should not be president. I’d start muttering about impeachment, but then Vice President Cheney would lose the Vice designation. Is it January 2009 yet?

Update: Congress reached a compromise deal with the White House on the torture issue, but details are unclear. As such, I’m holding little hope that the compromise incorporated any principles. President Bush will ignore what he doesn’t like, anyway, so it details probably don’t matter.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for the video link.

Ewww! Oh my God, you sick little monkey!

Where in the Constitution does it say that the United States government should engage in morality propaganda?

The White House is distributing government-produced, anti-drug videos on YouTube, the trendy Internet service that features clips of wacky, drug-induced behavior and step-by-step instructions for growing marijuana plants.

I won’t prattle on about the remaining details since this will be an inevitable failure. Any third-grader high on his big brother’s weed could figure that out. More absurd is this:

“If just one teen sees this and decides illegal drug use is not the path for them, it will be a success,” said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

This program is “free”, since the Office of National Drug Control Policy is only placing previously produced videos on YouTube. Gotcha. But no man hours were spent in the organization of this project? No man hours were needed to design the YouTube goodness? How much did we spend previously to put us in a position to save “just one teen”? Free is not free. It’s not provided in the Constitution, either, but I’ll just stick with the notion that propaganda is not free.

Recall that this is not the first time in recent memory that a government official has set the “just one teen” standard for any and all government intrusion. Now I’m giddy with anticipation (without the help of marijuana!) for future campaign slogans stating something like “If just one teen is saved from terrorism by program X, it will be a success.”

Do schools in Texas teach American civics?

If ever we had doubt that President Bush is unwilling to carry out his duties according to the Constitution’s text, he’s trying to open our minds to that reality:

Bush said he has “one test” for the proposed legislation [to allow “aggressive” interrogation techniques not authorized by the Geneva Conventions]: “The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue.” He declined to comment on whether he would veto the alternative bill if it passed, saying that he expects his version to win out.
…

Also vital, Bush said, is passage of legislation that would “provide additional authority” for a warrantless eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency. The program, which he approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to target communications between suspected terrorists abroad and plotters in the United States, has helped to detect and prevent attacks, Bush said.

“Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror,” he said. “We’ll work with Congress to get good bills out, because . . . we have a duty to work together to give our folks on the front line the tools necessary to protect America.”

Protecting America from attack is a valid use of governmental power, and the president is the person most directly charged with ensuring that we remain safe. But the president (and Congress and the Judiciary) must act within the bounds of the Constitution. President Bush needs to add at least two more tests for any proposed legislation, ones that involve assessing the Constitutionality of the legislation and its accordance with American principles. On the latter president Bush’s proposed legislation fails miserably. America should not torture. For the sitting president to make the counter-claim brings disgrace to the office.

Naturally he had to tangle himself up in his words to make his atrocious plea. Forget the mangled sentence structure of his first sentence. Read what he means in his statement.

“If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic,” Bush said, his voice rising. “It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

Since the explanation is in how the comparison is phrased, of course we’re not the same. The more fundamental point is whether or not we believe in civilized society ruled by law. Islamic extremists have already proven that they do not. But I think (thought) we do believe in the rule of law. Surely that entails a basic respect for human life, independent of actions. We’ve decided that justice may include the taking of life, but is that life not protected until we determine guilt? Is it okay to bash someone’s brains in because he might be holding information? I say no, regardless of whether or not the tortured person is scum. Our decency and ethical restraint is not about his worth; it is about ours. The president thinks differently. The president is wrong.

Specifically:

Bush criticized language in Common Article 3, notably a prohibition against “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” He said, “It’s like — it’s very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

Reasonable people can decipher “outrages upon human dignity,” but since the president believes we cannot, thus opening our interrogators to possible prosecution, let’s have a debate. Let’s discuss the techniques we can and can’t use. The president will not do this because he says he does not want to let our enemies know how we will extract information from them. A hollow, I believe, but I’ll grant that condition. To do so, the president must accept the vague prohibition against outrages upon human dignity. He cannot have plenary power to authorize whatever interrogation methods he deems necessary, with only the assurance of saying “oops” if someone goes too far.

Limited government does not thrive on vagueness. The president wants the vague rules to remain, as he only seeks immunity from prosecution under those vague rules. In other words, he wants no rules. But we knew that. Congress must not grant it to him. Bravo to Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham for defending the Constitution.

Another reason I’m a libertarian

I don’t shop at Wal-Mart because I loathe its overall experience. A few pennies extra is a small price for the (by comparison) more upscale presentation Target offers. Yet, I agree with George Will’s column today demonstrating how stupid the Democratic party is in its anti-economics crusade against Wal-Mart. Here’s a simple highlight:

People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart — it has one-fifth of the nation’s grocery business — save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party’s leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times as many applicants than there were jobs at this store.

Demand creates supply, unless politicians get in the way. Demand won’t go away, as the Democrats hope. The supply disappears, or worse, becomes diluted to something that satisfies no one. In this case, Wal-Mart pays more than it should, passing those costs onto customers who don’t want to pay. The only people who get what they want are the politicians.

Yet, I have a disagreement with Mr. Will’s column:

Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald’s (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?

It’s a small point, but painting liberals as our national scolds is nowhere near generous enough in placing blame. How liberals treat the Wal-Mart issue is telling, but only of the sense of superiority politicians of all political stripes take in telling others what to do. Mr. Will is trying to make a point, but it’s applicable to every person in political power.

Telling customers Americans they shouldn’t want what they want is a losing long-term strategy.

When will Congress ban Happy Meals?

Shocking news from the futurists:

One in five children is predicted to be obese by the end of the decade.

Uh oh. Someone wants more of my money. And who is that someone?

… Wednesday’s report [by the Institute of Medicine] spotlighted the government’s VERB campaign, a program once touted as spurring a 30 percent increase in exercise among the preteens it reached. It ended this year with Bush administration budget cuts.

VERB encouraged 9- to 13-year-olds to take part in physical activities, like bike riding or skateboarding. Slick ads, at a cost of $59 million last year, portrayed exercise as cool at an age when outdoor play typically winds down and adolescent slothfulness sets in.

The demise of the program “calls into question the commitment to obesity prevention within government,” the panel concluded.

[Emory University’s Dr. Jeffrey] Koplan was more blunt, calling it a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program that works and then dismantle it.

We all know the government is the only effective way to stop kids from being fat. Why do the fiscal conservatives hate fat kids? Sometimes I wonder how I sleep at night? Of course, I also wonder, if we encourage children to ride a bike or a skateboard, how will they accomplish what they’re now so wonderfully motivated to do if they don’t have a bike or a skateboard? There are poor parents in America who believe food, clothing, and shelter are more important. Their kids will be at a disadvantage, no? How much government taxpayer money is enough, so we don’t miss anyone?

Specifically to Dr. Koplan’s point, it’s a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program. Notice that I used his sentiment, but put the period in the correct place. It’s amazing what can happen when political principle meets grammar. Taxpayers save money, which is especially useful to me since I don’t have children targeted by that $59 million. I’d rather we spend it wisely. If that means I hate fat kids, so be it.

Or here’s an idea. When I was a kid, my brother and our friends liked to play football. You know what held us back? No field to play on. Fields existed in ready supply at neighborhood schools, as you’d expect, but we weren’t allowed on. If we’re going to have public provision of education, and all of the facilities apparently necessary, why not open them to the public paying for them. Liability blah blah blah. Football is a violent, dangerous sport etc. etc. etc. I know. Bikes and skateboards are dangerous, too. Solve the barriers imposed on money already spent on mostly idle property instead of creating new programs. It’s a suggestion.

Or government could leave parenting to parents.

Where’s the green slime?

I don’t have much to add on this development that I haven’t already said:

Television broadcasters won a temporary victory yesterday when a federal appeals court told the Federal Communications Commission not to enforce an indecency ruling it imposed on several television shows earlier this year.
…

“We are gratified that the court has taken the first step in recognizing the serious First Amendment issues raised by the FCC’s new enforcement policies,” CBS said in a corporate statement.

The FCC also considered yesterday’s ruling a partial victory. The agency said it made the March indecency rulings to give the broadcasters guidelines on what can be said on television. But when the broadcasters complained, the FCC acknowledged that it had not followed its usual procedure in declaring the shows indecent. The agency asked the court to send back the indecency decision so it could be reconsidered, which the court did yesterday.

A precedent enforcing the First Amendment would be wonderful, but I guess it takes more courage than anyone in government possesses to understand that bullshit is not going to lead to rotting child brains. If the FCC must think about the free speech ramifications of its actions before it acts, that’s a chilling effect I’m willing to live with. More than anything the Constitution protects the people from government intrusion, not through government intrusion. It’s worth remembering.

I’m accustomed enough to this wave of censorship that I’m resigned to fighting it rather than getting upset. However, 2½ years is not enough time for this quote to do anything other than make my blood boil.

“Hollywood argues that they should be able to say the F-word on television whenever they want,” FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper said in a written statement. “The commission continues to believe they are wrong, and there should be some limits on what can be shown on television.”

It would be easy enough to just use the F-word here and pretend like that’s a victory. I know it’s not, although I do take (minimal) joy in knowing that every person who reads that quote will think of the actual four-letter F-word. Saying and writing the F-word doesn’t sanitize reality, no matter how many horseshoes and rainbows busybody social conservatives want to wish upon to pretend it does. Ha! Point, my side.

What disgusts me is the tone and implication within Ms. Lipper’s statement. Trotting out “Hollywood” is a useful tactic because we all know they’re leftist liberal weenies who need to be stopped from corrupting our innocent, angelic little children. But I want my government to have just a smidge less contempt for the notion that it serves me. I do not care for the idea that the government may decide what can and can’t be shown. It is not in the Constitution, and it is not in our ideals. Next thing we know, the government will dictate what we can and can’t say on television about it and our elected leaders. Oh, wait.

Once given power, government tends to assume more and wield it in broad strokes. Ms. Lipper and the FCC demonstrate our need to better adhere to limited government principles as stated in our Constitution, lest we lose what rights are naturally ours.

We hold these truths to be subject to warrantless wiretapping

Ahem:

President Bush urged Congress today to give him “additional authority” to carry out a controversial warrantless eavesdropping program directed against international terrorists and to approve “broader reforms” in the 1978 law that regulates domestic surveillance of foreign agents’ communications.

I’m not a legal scholar, but I’m fairly certain that Congress does not have the authority to override that feature of the Constitution without an amendment to the Bill of Rights. Of course, the Bush Administration has pliable courts at its disposal, so I suspect this push is only for show. The administration didn’t let the Constitution trouble it during implementation. Our do-everything-but-what-is-federal-and-important Congress isn’t likely to fight back.